n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n1
In response to your request for a peer review of your manuscript on the relationship between
spirituality and loneliness, I have addressed what I believe to be two areas of strength and
three areas of potential improvement.
Strengths
1. The manuscript is well-organized, cogent, and devoid of major formatting errors.
The appropriate use of headings, spacing, table/figure formatting, and your
adherence to the assignment instructions contribute to an overall ease of readability
and demonstrate your commitment to the proofing and revision process.
2. The demographic data is presented in a meaningful way and the figure included
supports the reader’s understanding of that data. Furthermore, the variables of
interest are clearly stated, as is the hypothesis. The correct statistical analysis was
used and a decision regarding the null hypothesis is stated concisely and
accurately.
Weaknesses
1. A critical figure is missing. Per the assignment instructions (1.b.iii.2), the
manuscript requires a figure related to the tested hypothesis, which, in this case,
would have been a scatterplot depicting the relationship between spirituality and
loneliness (Harris, 2022).
2. There are multiple errors in the statistical write up. Although you correctly failed to
reject the null hypothesis, as supported by the SPSS output, the degrees of freedom
are incorrect (40 is stated; 38 is correct [N-2]), the r value is incorrect (.75 is
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n2
stated; .075 is correct), and the coefficient of determination is absent, though it
should be included, despite the non-significant findings, per the Helpful Hints for
Success document located in Module 1 (St. Peters, 2022; Harris, 2022).
3. The discussion portion of the manuscript lacks clarity and depth of thought
regarding the relevance of the findings. Section 2.d of the assignment instructions
necessitates a presentation of the “big picture” (Harris, 2022), yet neither the
importance of these variables as individual constructs nor the importance of
understanding the relationship between the two is adequately presented here. n n n
One strength of your paper is that it is apparent that you have put a lot of thought into
it. You thoroughly considered your population and how that may have affected, or not
affected, your results. Another strength is that you have a lot of substantial support both for
and against your hypothesis, showing the differences and similarities in other studies. You also
considered many potential confounds of your study. One suggestion I would have would be to
consider future implications of a relationship, or non relationship, of your variables. Also,
don't forget a graph in your paper to visualize your results. Last, consider breaking up your
ideas into more paragraphs.
